Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 04/25/2010 9:10:00 AM PDT by SmithL
When now Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito faced a Senate confirmation vote in 2006, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had no qualms about rejecting Alito simply because she did not agree with him. "If one is pro-choice in this day and age, in this structure, one can't vote for Judge Alito," Feinstein declared.
Feinstein went even further. When Republicans argued that simple fairness demanded a full floor vote on Alito, Feinstein, like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., supported the use of the filibuster to prevent it. They tried but failed to prevent a majority-rules vote.
Now that Democrats are in power, judicial philosophy doesn't matter. Before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the confirmation of UC Berkeley Law Professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Feinstein complained to The Chronicle's Bob Egelko that Liu's critics were all "attack, attack, attack," which seemed unfair as Liu is "exemplary."
So here is the conundrum, in two parts.
Should Democrats, who have happily rejected Republican presidents' judicial nominees on philosophical grounds, complain when Republicans do the same to the Democrats' picks?
The answer is: No, but it's not as if you can stop them.
And should Republicans stick to the let-a-conservative-pick-a-conservative-and-then let-the-full-Senate-vote standard, when a liberal is the president and Democrats rule the Senate?
Yes, but that doesn't mean Repubs have to throw rose petals at Liu's feet. The standard I would suggest is a low bar - that the GOP treat Liu better than he treated Alito and now-Chief Justice John Roberts, who, Liu argued, were too extreme for the Big Bench.
Liu's criticism of four Alito decisions upholding capital punishment cases - only one of which prevailed - showed that Liu wrongly jumped "to a conclusion of racism,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Just the fact he HID over 100 docs from the Senate should disqualify him.
“He has criticized conservative legal doctrine, written that the interpretation of the Constitution must evolve and adapt to a changing society, and theorized that people may have a constitutional right to “welfare” benefits, such as education and shelter, if those things are bestowed on them by legislative action.”
We could be cursed with this bastard for 40 - 50 years.
I know that the Libertarian ping list doesn’t usually ping judgeship articles, but they may be interested in this one. Here is an excerpt:
““He has criticized conservative legal doctrine, written that the interpretation of the Constitution must evolve and adapt to a changing society, and theorized that people may have a constitutional right to “welfare” benefits”
A Constitutional right to welfare benefits? I’ve never heard anything like that before.
This guy is a radical even by the standards of the 9th. Circus Court of Appeals.
If one is pro-Constitution one can’t vote for Liu.
Ahhhh-liu the LIAR—should fit right in with obama the LIAR’s socialism plans for the US
Justice Robert Jackson wrote after WW2 that the US Constitution is not an instrument of national suicide. John Paul Stevens, this guy and many other hard core leftists disagree.
His name isn’t Gordon Liu, it’s Goodwin Liu. And, yes, he’s far too radical to be allowed to serve as a federal circuit judge.
You are correct, and the name in the story is correct. I like Debra, so I’m willing to blame an editor at SFGate.
; )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.